Twitter blocks neo-Nazi account in Germany—but not in rest of world

Nation-specific blocking tool deployed by Twitter for first time.

The Twitter account of a neo-Nazi group has been blocked in Germany in response to a request from authorities in that country. It is the first case of Twitter blocking an account in just one country, nine months after the company announced the ability to withhold content in specific countries while keeping it available to the rest of the world.

The @hannoverticker account is used by a group called Besseres Hannover, “which Lower Saxony’s state government banned last month on the ground that it was promoting Nazi ideals in an attempt to undermine German’s democracy,” the Associated Press reported today. Lower Saxony officials asked Twitter in a letter to “close this account immediately and not to open any substitute accounts for the organization Besseres Hannover.” The name means “Better Hannover.”

Twitter enabled nation-specific blocking to comply with the rules of specific countries without being forced to censor content worldwide. That the first instance of blocking was related to neo-Nazi content is not surprising. In Twitter’s January announcement, it noted that some countries, “for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.”

As of today, the @hannoverticker account shows just one tweet in the past few weeks. The account’s activity died down starting Sept. 25, when it linked to an article describing a police raid of facilities used by Besseres Hannover, “which is banned as of today as a criminal organization.”

Twitter has long resisted censorship, although it invited criticism (and was forced to apologize) in a recent case when it suspended the account of a critic of NBC’s Olympics coverage. In instances of country-specific blocking, Twitter said it would maintain transparency by making it clear when an account has been blocked rather than wiping all traces of it off the site. As such, German users who try to access the Besseres Hannover account should see a notice like the one at the top of this story.

Promoted Comments

This is a very complex problem to discuss, so be careful with judging this too quickly. In Germany, we have the saying, "Wehret den Anfängen", which roughly translates into "Fight the beginnings" and commonly means to not let antidemocratic and fascist movements gain any ground anymore in Germany. On the other hand, I agree with Osvaldo that the most dangerous extremist is the closeted extremist, which was recently proven by the murders commited by the neo nazi group NSU, where the full dimension of the crimes they committed was only discovered in the last two years. Additionally, there is the very strong opinion that free speech is one of the most precious goods of a modern society.

The general view by us germans on neo nazism is clear: it has absolutely no place in our society and we want to eradicate it. Three years of our lives we spend learning about the crimes the Nazis committed and it is very clear that this must never happen again. Yet, there are many people, especially in former East-Germany, who did not receive this education to this extent, and it appears to be not just coincidence that neo nazi parties are sitting in the state government in saxony (They are a minority and don't have anything to say, but this was a big shock).

Germans who are against neo nazism, and those are the vast majority, cannot be converted back into Nazis by a Twitter account (or anything or anybody else). I think the reason for this action, and I think this was the right thing to do, was to break yet another communication link of these groups, to let them know, "we've got an eye on you".

57 Reader Comments

After living outside Frankfurt for a couple years and befriending a slew of great German friends, I quickly learned that the Germans are (unsurprisingly) intolerant of Neo-Nazis. Any mention of the word "Nazi" will get you off to a really bad start if you're speaking with German nationals, typically. Some even speak of the war as if it just happened.

All that being said, I have little doubt that the German government worked with Twitter on this.

After living outside Frankfurt for a couple years and befriending a slew of great German friends, I quickly learned that the Germans are (unsurprisingly) intolerant of Neo-Nazis. Any mention of the word "Nazi" will get you off to a really bad start if you're speaking with German nationals, typically. Some even speak of the war as if it just happened.

All that being said, I have little doubt that the German government worked with Twitter on this.

Yep, when I was stationed there in the Army, we were warned on in-processing not to bring it up basically. It doesn't surprise me, nor to be honest does it bother me that twitter did this. I also lived outside of Frankfurt funnily enough.

It surprises me that some people see this as twitter sliding down a slippery slope. Or cencorship at all. They blocked an illegal account only in the country it was illegal. If they failed to do the same with an account that blocks child porn, which is also illegal, they wouldn't be hailed as champions of free expression.

I wonder if this ban still makes sense. I guess any other kind of hate speech or borderline-criminal ideas are protected by freedom of expression in Germany; so what's the point to single out nazism? Intelligent nazis (if there are any...) could probably dodge the law by changing some terminology or using codes or whatever. For one thing, anti-semitic ideas are not an invention of nazism, so I think people can march on the streets of Munich chanting "burn the jews" as long as they don't wear swastikas or scream Heil Hitler.

Also, as much as I despise and fear this people, allowing them to openly express their opinions is useful to keep them in check. Maybe nazis should be listed in some public registry, just like sex offenders, so any citizen knows when a nazi moves into the neighborhood. The most dangerous extremist is the closeted extremist... let them talk.

I wonder if this ban still makes sense. I guess any other kind of hate speech or borderline-criminal ideas are protected by freedom of expression in Germany; so what's the point to single out nazism? Intelligent nazis (if there are any...) could probably dodge the law by changing some terminology or using codes or whatever. For one thing, anti-semitic ideas are not an invention of nazism, so I think people can march on the streets of Munich chanting "burn the jews" as long as they don't wear swastikas or scream Heil Hitler.

Also, as much as I despise and fear this people, allowing them to openly express their opinions is useful to keep them in check. Maybe nazis should be listed in some public registry, just like sex offenders, so any citizen knows when a nazi moves into the neighborhood. The most dangerous extremist is the closeted extremist... let them talk.

I almost think the point of singling out Nazism is sort of an "Oh hell no not these idiots again" reaction from the German People. It's also, in my opinion, a way for the Germans to matter of factly point out that they aren't ever going to allow that to happen again.

It surprises me that some people see this as twitter sliding down a slippery slope. Or cencorship at all. They blocked an illegal account only in the country it was illegal. If they failed to do the same with an account that blocks child porn, which is also illegal, they wouldn't be hailed as champions of free expression.

I think the issue becomes one of what countries' laws do they choose to respect and who makes that determination?

If Syria says that it is unlawful for twitter accounts to mention anything about the current situation over there, should twitter respect that? Why? Why not? Who makes that determination?

Given the usefulness of twitter during the Arab Spring, I would hate for it to be blocked because the local governments tell them to. So yes, it can be a slippery slope.

It surprises me that some people see this as twitter sliding down a slippery slope. Or cencorship at all. They blocked an illegal account only in the country it was illegal. If they failed to do the same with an account that blocks child porn, which is also illegal, they wouldn't be hailed as champions of free expression.

I think the issue becomes one of what countries' laws do they choose to respect and who makes that determination?

If Syria says that it is unlawful for twitter accounts to mention anything about the current situation over there, should twitter respect that? Why? Why not? Who makes that determination?

It surprises me that some people see this as twitter sliding down a slippery slope. Or cencorship at all. They blocked an illegal account only in the country it was illegal. If they failed to do the same with an account that blocks child porn, which is also illegal, they wouldn't be hailed as champions of free expression.

I think the issue becomes one of what countries' laws do they choose to respect and who makes that determination?

If Syria says that it is unlawful for twitter accounts to mention anything about the current situation over there, should twitter respect that? Why? Why not? Who makes that determination?

As a private company, I'm guessing Twitter makes that determination

Yes. That is true. However, they still have to deal with public opinion. Ultimately, it will have to come down to the bottom line; which course of action will have the least negative financial impact (annoying the public or annoying a government). If they try to tread a moral ground, they will run into a quagmire.

This is a very complex problem to discuss, so be careful with judging this too quickly. In Germany, we have the saying, "Wehret den Anfängen", which roughly translates into "Fight the beginnings" and commonly means to not let antidemocratic and fascist movements gain any ground anymore in Germany. On the other hand, I agree with Osvaldo that the most dangerous extremist is the closeted extremist, which was recently proven by the murders commited by the neo nazi group NSU, where the full dimension of the crimes they committed was only discovered in the last two years. Additionally, there is the very strong opinion that free speech is one of the most precious goods of a modern society.

The general view by us germans on neo nazism is clear: it has absolutely no place in our society and we want to eradicate it. Three years of our lives we spend learning about the crimes the Nazis committed and it is very clear that this must never happen again. Yet, there are many people, especially in former East-Germany, who did not receive this education to this extent, and it appears to be not just coincidence that neo nazi parties are sitting in the state parliament in saxony (They are a minority and don't have anything to say, but this was a big shock).

Germans who are against neo nazism, and those are the vast majority, cannot be converted back into Nazis by a Twitter account (or anything or anybody else). I think the reason for this action, and I think this was the right thing to do, was to break yet another communication link of these groups, to let them know, "we've got an eye on you".

Obviously Twitter wouldn't ban womens rights groups from the Middle East, or pro-democracy dissidents from the same, or Pussy Riot from Russia? But now they put themselves in as arbitrator of what's free speech, and well, what's also free speech, but they're kinda icky, so ban them.

Now consider the concept of free speech, that is an universal right, not something arbitrary governments define.

If Germany has laws against hatespeech, then let /them/ enforce those laws. Censorship can never be justified.

I wish they were banned in all countries. Regardless, freedom of speech does not apply to Twitter accounts. The only thing that applies to Twitter accounts is the Twitter EULA. Twitter is not a government entity.

After living outside Frankfurt for a couple years and befriending a slew of great German friends, I quickly learned that the Germans are (unsurprisingly) intolerant of Neo-Nazis. Any mention of the word "Nazi" will get you off to a really bad start if you're speaking with German nationals, typically. Some even speak of the war as if it just happened.

All that being said, I have little doubt that the German government worked with Twitter on this.

Yes, for God's sake, don't mention the War! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

It surprises me that some people see this as twitter sliding down a slippery slope. Or cencorship at all. They blocked an illegal account only in the country it was illegal. If they failed to do the same with an account that blocks child porn, which is also illegal, they wouldn't be hailed as champions of free expression.

I think the issue becomes one of what countries' laws do they choose to respect and who makes that determination?

If Syria says that it is unlawful for twitter accounts to mention anything about the current situation over there, should twitter respect that? Why? Why not? Who makes that determination?

Given the usefulness of twitter during the Arab Spring, I would hate for it to be blocked because the local governments tell them to. So yes, it can be a slippery slope.

I understand that, but there's a difference between a country asking twitter to block an account and a country asking twitter to block an account that is breaking the law. Unfortunately for some some nations, they can make laws that will allow abuse of what we see as basic rights, but we have to remember that twitter must abide by the laws of the nations it operates in. And not all of those countries have the same idea of what rights are inalienable as we do. What's right and what's legal aren't always the same, and they are also subject to change based on where you ask and who you ask.

After living outside Frankfurt for a couple years and befriending a slew of great German friends, I quickly learned that the Germans are (unsurprisingly) intolerant of Neo-Nazis. Any mention of the word "Nazi" will get you off to a really bad start if you're speaking with German nationals, typically. Some even speak of the war as if it just happened.

All that being said, I have little doubt that the German government worked with Twitter on this.

Yes, for God's sake, don't mention the War! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

You may mention it, but I heard Americans tell me, "well, if Hitler hadn't attacked Great Britain, he could have won the war". This is ignorant. Don't do that.

Obviously Twitter wouldn't ban womens rights groups from the Middle East, or pro-democracy dissidents from the same, or Pussy Riot from Russia? But now they put themselves in as arbitrator of what's free speech, and well, what's also free speech, but they're kinda icky, so ban them.

Now consider the concept of free speech, that is an universal right, not something arbitrary governments define.

If Germany has laws against hatespeech, then let /them/ enforce those laws. Censorship can never be justified.

Germany was enforcing their laws. By telling Twitter to ban the account.

You guys are missing the key points in the question of "who decides".

1) In countries where Twitter has a business presence (or where they want to have a business presence), they have to "play along" with local laws. You can't have an office in Germany and say "but we're not going to follow your laws". So the key way Twitter will decide which laws to follow is by which countries they want to do business in. (And by "do business in" I don't mean "accept accounts from". I mean "be able to sell advertising services in that country".) Twitter would have no reason to follow an edict from the government of Syria because they don't have a business presence there. Syria would have no way to enforce their laws upon Twitter, while Germany would.

2) Which brings me to the next point, which is the same point that Google ran into with regards to China. Is it better to play along with the local laws and provide this great democratizing service to the people of a country? or is it better to not play along, and risk having the service blocked for the whole country, so that no one gets even the partial benefit of a censored-but-otherwise-very-useful service? Those are trade-offs that I believe need to be addressed on a country-by-country basis, based on how censorious that country is trying to be.

Germany has long engaged in censorship of Nazi-esque speech. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a little weird to be discussing this only in the context of Twitter. It's like people are saying "I know this close ally of other western democracies has been censoring this type of speech for 60 years, including books, movies, television shows, video games, essays, press coverage, etc. I never had a problem with any other media company doing business there and playing along with these rules. But now that Twitter is playing along, that's the last straw."

I think that US folks here need to take into account the German concept of "fortified democracy" which - for better or for worse - stands in sharp contrast to the US-American, almost limitless understanding of "freedom of speech".

If one takes into account that Hitler's National Socialists effectively destroyed democracy "by its own means" then one can maybe try to understand why Germans no longer believe that a majority of voters will always 'throw the rascals out'.

After living outside Frankfurt for a couple years and befriending a slew of great German friends, I quickly learned that the Germans are (unsurprisingly) intolerant of Neo-Nazis. Any mention of the word "Nazi" will get you off to a really bad start if you're speaking with German nationals, typically. Some even speak of the war as if it just happened.

All that being said, I have little doubt that the German government worked with Twitter on this.

Yep, when I was stationed there in the Army, we were warned on in-processing not to bring it up basically. It doesn't surprise me, nor to be honest does it bother me that twitter did this. I also lived outside of Frankfurt funnily enough.

After living outside Frankfurt for a couple years and befriending a slew of great German friends, I quickly learned that the Germans are (unsurprisingly) intolerant of Neo-Nazis. Any mention of the word "Nazi" will get you off to a really bad start if you're speaking with German nationals, typically. Some even speak of the war as if it just happened.

All that being said, I have little doubt that the German government worked with Twitter on this.

Yep, when I was stationed there in the Army, we were warned on in-processing not to bring it up basically. It doesn't surprise me, nor to be honest does it bother me that twitter did this. I also lived outside of Frankfurt funnily enough.

After living outside Frankfurt for a couple years and befriending a slew of great German friends, I quickly learned that the Germans are (unsurprisingly) intolerant of Neo-Nazis. Any mention of the word "Nazi" will get you off to a really bad start if you're speaking with German nationals, typically. Some even speak of the war as if it just happened.

All that being said, I have little doubt that the German government worked with Twitter on this.

Yes, for God's sake, don't mention the War! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Depends which Hotel you stop in

As you age it is often earlier memories which become clearer whereas recent events quickly fade. So for some their memories of those times will almost be like yesterday. While for some it may feel like a denial of free speech somethings are so important that you can actually bring it to peoples attention by slapping it down.

I actually agree with Twitter's actions, but I'm not sure about Germany's. I mean, I'm really not sure. I don't have enough grounding in the situation to really form an opinion.

But regardless, Twitter has offices in Germany, and until they decide that the neo-Nazis are worth pulling their physical presence out of the country they should obey it's laws. And I really don't see them being inclined to make a fuss over some skinheads.

I completely respect German sensitivities over the Nazi issue, but the issue of free speech really is one thing the US got correct right from the start, and which we Europeans still (Still! Over 200 years later!) handle with great difficulty. It's not just Germany - France has the Gayssot Act of 1990 with an 18 month sentence for 'incitement to religious hatred', and Tony Blair made a determined effort to enact similar censorship in the UK.

I think it's deeply unfortunate that this has occurred, but Twitter was in a position that left it no choice. It certainly will encourage other governments to seek service bans for far more ignoble purposes.

Germany has long engaged in censorship of Nazi-esque speech. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's a little weird to be discussing this only in the context of Twitter. It's like people are saying "I know this close ally of other western democracies has been censoring this type of speech for 60 years, including books, movies, television shows, video games, essays, press coverage, etc. I never had a problem with any other media company doing business there and playing along with these rules. But now that Twitter is playing along, that's the last straw."

I fully agree with most of your comment, but there's one thing I'd like to add. Most western countries have some kind of censorship laws, for different reasons, most of them historically motivated. Germany and France are probably the most obvious examples, but other European countries have similar laws. Actually, I think the U.S. (perhaps Canada?) is the only country I know of that has this fundamentalistic view on freedom of speech.Countries (and their people) disagree on what the fundamental rights are exactly and what their relative value might be. This is a good thing. But, international companies have to navigate this maze and have to break something that is fundamentally right in their home base to do business in another.

I would keep in mind that this can be a good thing for the account owner, should they wish to travel in Germany, where public ally spreading such speech is not only classified as hate speech, but separately prosecuted by default, and when dealing with Nazi ideals, carries mandatory jail sentences.

I completely respect German sensitivi-ties over the Nazi issue, but the issue of free speech really is one thing the US got correct right from the start, and which we Europeans still (Still! Over 200 years later!) handle with great difficulty.

Please elaborate. I don't see how there's a difficulty in fighting anti-democratic movements who deny the holocaust and all its cruelties, and still commit crimes under the Nazi flag. I find it ethically more difficult to allow neonazism to exist unsanctioned, as it is the case in the US. Do you want all this to happen again? I don't. This has to be prevented at all costs. We Europeans, especially we Germans, have learnt a big, big lesson from this. If our european educational systems, although most of them rank best worldwide, don't fix this problem, fortified democracy has to do it, and we are good at it. The nobel peace prize was not unjustified, I believe.

I completely respect German sensitivi-ties over the Nazi issue, but the issue of free speech really is one thing the US got correct right from the start, and which we Europeans still (Still! Over 200 years later!) handle with great difficulty.

Please elaborate. I don't see how there's a difficulty in fighting anti-democratic movements who deny the holocaust and all its cruelties, and still commit crimes under the Nazi flag. I find it ethically more difficult to allow neonazism to exist unsanctioned, as it is the case in the US. Do you want all this to happen again? I don't. This has to be prevented at all costs. We Europeans, especially we Germans, have learnt a big, big lesson from this. If our european educational systems, although most of them rank best worldwide, don't fix this problem, fortified democracy has to do it, and we are good at it. The nobel peace prize was not unjustified, I believe.

I certainly agree that these movements should be vigorously resisted. But I don't believe you need to restrict freedom of speech to do so. There have been neonazi groups active in the USA for a long time, in fact you can trace their fascist origins back to the formation of the Free Society of Teutonia in 1924. Yet they have failed to garner even a token presence in elected office. Even if you lump together all the diverse assortment of 'patriot' groups on the radical right, they have performed more poorly in the US, where they are free to distribute their drivel as much as they want, than they have in European states that restrict their speech.

There is obviously a vast array of cultural and economic issues underlying this movement, but in the USA the principle of freedom of speech has proved quite effective at denying them any effective presence. This comes at a price, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." But the USA has shown it is quite willing to do so.

As I said, I can sympathise with German sensibilities over this. The disaster of 1933 is definitely something that should never be repeated. But I do not believe that fortified democracy is the best means of achieving this. Certainly not in the long term. The best defence of freedom lies in the hands of civil society, not the state.

While these problems are felt most acutely in Germany and Austria, this is really a wider European problem as well. And as a European I feel that it is a failing we all share.

The EU was responsible for the cessation of a string of conflicts in central and western Europe that reached back over 200 years. I think the Peace Prize was well-deserved.

I certainly agree that these movements should be vigorously resisted. But I don't believe you need to restrict freedom of speech to do so. There have been neonazi groups active in the USA for a long time, in fact you can trace their fascist origins back to the formation of the Free Society of Teutonia in 1924. Yet they have failed to garner even a token presence in elected office. Even if you lump together all the diverse assortment of 'patriot' groups on the radical right, they have performed more poorly in the US, where they are free to distribute their drivel as much as they want, than they have in European states that restrict their speech.

... until one person comes along who unites them all. It has happened before, and back then we very soon wished we had a fortified democracy. 0xym0r0n summarized it well: We don't believe anymore that the people will vote away the crazy people. How can we?

I certainly agree that these movements should be vigorously resisted. But I don't believe you need to restrict freedom of speech to do so. There have been neonazi groups active in the USA for a long time, in fact you can trace their fascist origins back to the formation of the Free Society of Teutonia in 1924. Yet they have failed to garner even a token presence in elected office. Even if you lump together all the diverse assortment of 'patriot' groups on the radical right, they have performed more poorly in the US, where they are free to distribute their drivel as much as they want, than they have in European states that restrict their speech.

... until one person comes along who unites them all. It has happened before, and back then we very soon wished we had a fortified democracy. 0xym0r0n summarized it well: We don't believe anymore that the people will vote away the crazy people. How can we?

That's why we have to be vigilant and argue against these people vigorously and loudly. But I do believe that the proper reaction to hateful speech is more speech, not restriction of speech. I understand that Germany specifically and Europe in general have a good historical reason for wanting such strong preventive measures, but I also think they're sacrificing essential freedom in order to protect freedom.

I fully agree with most of your comment, but there's one thing I'd like to add. Most western countries have some kind of censorship laws, for different reasons, most of them historically motivated. Germany and France are probably the most obvious examples, but other European countries have similar laws. Actually, I think the U.S. (perhaps Canada?) is the only country I know of that has this fundamentalistic view on freedom of speech.Countries (and their people) disagree on what the fundamental rights are exactly and what their relative value might be. This is a good thing. But, international companies have to navigate this maze and have to break something that is fundamentally right in their home base to do business in another.

I believe Canada also has laws against certain hate speech. I saw it in an Erroll Morris documentary.

Obviously Twitter wouldn't ban womens rights groups from the Middle East, or pro-democracy dissidents from the same, or Pussy Riot from Russia? But now they put themselves in as arbitrator of what's free speech, and well, what's also free speech, but they're kinda icky, so ban them.

Now consider the concept of free speech, that is an universal right, not something arbitrary governments define.

If Germany has laws against hatespeech, then let /them/ enforce those laws. Censorship can never be justified.

Has it occurred to you that one way they would have of enforcing those laws would be firewalling Twitter for not block that account?

Obviously Twitter wouldn't ban womens rights groups from the Middle East, or pro-democracy dissidents from the same, or Pussy Riot from Russia? But now they put themselves in as arbitrator of what's free speech, and well, what's also free speech, but they're kinda icky, so ban them.

Now consider the concept of free speech, that is an universal right, not something arbitrary governments define.

If Germany has laws against hatespeech, then let /them/ enforce those laws. Censorship can never be justified.

You forget that Twitter is a privately held service run by a privately held company. There is a distinction between public space and private space. Twitter is not a public face, no matter how hard they try to have their cake and eat it, too.

Blimey! Some strange details to leave out of the story. The Besserer Hannover organisation is under criminal investigation, and has as a result had its assets ceased. Sounds pretty common, yeah? The police considered the Twitter account to be an asset and wanted it ceased as well, but Twitter done fucked up, and just censored it in Germany. What.

Also; some comments made in this thread seems to have some severely historical ignorance. Hitler did not just win with some crazy ideas, he won because of the conditions in Germany at the time, the corruption and incapability of government, the powerful Prussian government and his own scheming. The three former cases are not the situation in today's Germany, not even elsewhere in Europe. If you think the situation is Greece is close to the 1920s' Germany, then you have no idea how it was in the 1920s in Germany.

It was horrible. Germany today has a strong economy that will probably survive most crisis. Germany doesn't even need anti-democratic laws today. (And before someone makes a crack about 'unless Germany starts another world war'; then again, you have no understanding for why the first two world wars started.)

The general view by us germans on neo nazism is clear: it has absolutely no place in our society and we want to eradicate it. Three years of our lives we spend learning about the crimes the Nazis committed and it is very clear that this must never happen again. Yet, there are many people, especially in former East-Germany, who did not receive this education to this extent, and it appears to be not just coincidence that neo nazi parties are sitting in the state parliament in saxony (They are a minority and don't have anything to say, but this was a big shock).

Germans who are against neo nazism, and those are the vast majority, cannot be converted back into Nazis by a Twitter account (or anything or anybody else). I think the reason for this action, and I think this was the right thing to do, was to break yet another communication link of these groups, to let them know, "we've got an eye on you".

Edit: It's the state parliament, not government.

The problem is that in modern day Germany fascism is making great progress under the radar. THIS is the problem right now. It's not about neo nazism, mind you. It's just the very same prejudices and thinking patterns that were prevalent back then before the Nazis got voted in are rife today. Just read the comments on newspaper articles. Just listen to what people are talking about and telling you in the Strassenbahn, even without you having asked them. It's all about foreigners, about the weakness of democracy, about corrupt politicians, clueless journalists, about how the little man is exploited, about injustice and over-complicated administration. It's everything Hitler and the NSDAP rode on.

And yes, I'm German, I know what I'm talking about. Fascism is totally there in Germany and it's not about Nazis. The people are basically fascists, even if they don't know it. They yearn for order, for being led, for hard measures, for being the same (and fuck all who are different), for German Culture (whatever that is). It's disgusting and that fascism in all its colors is rearing its ugly head everywhere (and I count in Romney here) doesn't make this any better.

And yes, I'm all for suppressing hate speech. It's like a contagious disease, you have to contain it. It's a kind of thing you have to respect in an individual, but in a modern networked society it's just too dangerous. It speaks to primitive emotions and can light fires that are very hard to put down again.

And yes, I'm all for suppressing hate speech. It's like a contagious disease, you have to contain it. It's a kind of thing you have to respect in an individual, but in a modern networked society it's just too dangerous. It speaks to primitive emotions and can light fires that are very hard to put down again.

Government shouldn't punish people for their believes. The byproduct of a democracy and free speech is hate speech and intolerant messages. By if you silence them, you merely give them power. The more they allow you to speak, the more people will decide you are a loon and/or you will work with the current system to prevail, essentially compromising.

Encouraging violence? That's bad. Insulting specific demographics? You're a jerk, but it should be legal. We cannot cherrypick. How else will know who are the jerks in our society that we will have to walk around? If what he says is illegal, how do we know he is even telling his true feelings?